Towards Orthodox-Catholic Reconciliation

More on the Immaculate Conception in Eastern Orthodoxy

A bit of historical background on the Immaculate Conception in Eastern Orthodoxy, from Casimir A. Kucharek’s The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (Allendale, NJ: Alleluia Press, 1971), pp. 354-7. I would love to see an Orthodox historian’s rebuttal of Kucharek (a Greek Catholic) on this topic.

The Byzantine Church calls [Mary] Panagia, “the all-holy one”, because she is the supreme example of synergy, the cooperation between God’s will and man’s freedom. Forever respecting the free will of man, God became incarnate through the free consent of the person he chose as his Mother. She could have refused, but she did not. “So the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed through the obedience of Mary,” says Irenaeus, “for what Eve, a virgin, had bound through her unbelief, Mary, a virgin, unloosed through her faith.” (Ad. haeres. III, 22, 4). Jerome puts it more succinctly: “Death by Eve, life by Mary.” (Epist. 22, 21) And Cabasilas: “The Incarnation was not only the work of the Father, of his Power and his Spirit … but also that of the will and faith of the Virgin … Just as God became incarnate voluntarily, so he wished that his Mother should bear him freely and with her full consent.” (On the Annunciation, 4-5).

Also, from end to end of the Byzantine world, both Catholic and Orthodox greet the Mother of God as achrantos, “the immaculate, spotless one”, no less than eight times in the Divine Liturgy alone. But especially on the feast of her conception (December 9 in the Byzantine Church) is her immaculateness stressed: “This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary …” (From the Office of Matins, the Third Ode of the Canon for the feast); “She is conceived … the only immaculate one” (From the Office of Matins, the Stanzas during the Seating, for the same feast); or “Having conceived the most pure dove, Anne filled …” (From the Office of Matins, the Sixth Ode of the Canon for the same feast). No sin, no fault, not even the slightest, ever marred the perfect sanctity of this masterpiece of God’s creation. For hundreds of years, the Byzantine Church has believed this, prayed and honored Mary in this way. Centuries of sacred tradition stand behind this title. Even during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when some Western theologians doubted or denied the truth of her immaculate conception, Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox theologians unanimously taught it.* Two of Thomas Aquinas’ most ardent disciples among the Greeks disagreed with him on one point only, his failure to admit the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. Demetrios Kydonios (fourteenth century) translated some of Aquinas’ works into Greek, but vehemently opposed Thomas’ views on the immaculate conception.

The Greek Orthodox Church’s belief in the immaculate conception continued unanimously until the fifteenth century, then many Greek theologians began to adopt the idea that Mary had been made immaculate at the moment of the Annunciation.** Among the Eastern Slavs, belief in the immaculate conception went undisturbed until the seventeenth century, when the Skrizhal (Book of Laws) appeared in Russia, and proposed what the Slavs considered the “novel” doctrine of the Greeks. The views proposed in the Skrizhal were branded as blasphemous, especially among the Staroviery (Old Believers), who maintained the ancient customs and beliefs, however small or inconsequential. This reaction confirms the ancient Byzantine and Slav tradition of the immaculate conception. Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians.*** The Orthodox Church, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. Its official position is rather a suspension of judgment than a true objection. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII’s letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.

** “Nicephorus Callixtus, however, expressed doubt during the fourteenth century […], but the great Cabasilas’ (1371) teaching on the immaculate conception […] still has great influence in the subsequent centuries. Perhaps even more influential was Patriarch [sic] Gregory Palamas (1446-1452), whose homilies on the Mother of God are second to none even today […].

*** “Most of them seem to have objected on the grounds that it was unnecessary to define it.”

Like this:

Related

24 Responses

I have posted on my blog the first of a three part essay in which I attempt to develop thoughts on the Orthodox Catholic Faith.

In these thoughts my attempt is to somehow explore what exactly is the Orthodox Faith and through this endeavor(I am not necessarily speaking exclusively of my particular endeavor but endeavors like it) I believe one may reasonably begin to ask the questions I feel oftentimes are lacking in forums where “ecumenism” is the trump card above all other criterion in the search for unity.

In other words, I believe that many things are assumed as being true for The Orthodox Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church without some very serious questions being addressed first, namely, what is the Christian Faith we are both(Orthodox Catholic and Roman Catholic) speaking about? Is it the same thing or are we wielding the same words and phrases with very different meaning poured into them?

These and other questions like them are paramount in my estimation of the starting point for ecumenical discussion.

One of the reasons I tend not to engage in forums such as this one is that many assumptions are incorporated into the groundwork necessitated by the overarching call of Ecumenism and that the prime questions of what we’re all supposed to be in agreement about are not asked or if asked, the one asking is misunderstood because he draws from a different soil(and therefore his roots draw forth different nutrients) in his answers and formulations.

I believe it to be wise to take into account the voice of those who dissent from “ecumenism” and to make the attempt at listening to why they offer dissent. Perhaps they may may be right.

My essay springs from a heartfelt desire to make known this other voice to those “outside” the Orthodox Catholic Church. Not in condemnation but with love stating that the differences are very real and have ramifications.

Bear in mind I am not a learned man but I (fearfully) may lay claim to trying to love God and attempting to acquire the Holy Spirit.

In *principle* I suppose they may be wrong, only in the sense that by making a statement as I make above to which you refer:

Perhaps they may may be right

I am left open to the possibility of someone construing the statement in the form of it, the statement, denoting a truth which is arrived at through vote and not “Truth” which holds not in regard who holds it, “Truth”.

Something along the lines of those uncomfortable moments we experience when someone who really likes us says “I love you” and we are left with the conundrum of what to say in return. Not wishing to offend or hurt the other requires extreme care and love in the forming of a response.

Kucharek’s historical survey is rather thin; much better (as an instance of multum in parvo) is that by Fr. Lev Gillet, “The Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox Church.” Fr. Lev wrote it in 1954, but it was not published (and that in a very obscure periodical) until 1983. I have sent a copy to the “blogmeister” in the hope that he might find it useful to post an excerpt (or perhaps even the whole) here.

I think Diane, ( in her “simple ” believer’s reaction- which is not so simple because simple believers are not that simple, despite what “sophistcated” theologians may believe), has hit on the exact nerve which has bothered me about what I will call, ( and this, I believe, is what irrittated Mr. Robinson and banned me from his blog,) the “tag team” of the two “P’s”, champion members of the World Wide Federation of Theological Wrestlers.
They have no goal but to win the argument.

Evagrius: You are more than welcome to post here, but please, lay off the personal comments and airing dirty laundry from other blogs – Your kindly host, EE

LOL, thank you, evagrius. And thank you, Dr. Tighe. I received Fr. Gillet’s article tonight and found it utterly fascinating. I am so glad that our esteemed Eirenikon Editor plans to post it, as that saves me the trouble of quoting from it. :-)

Evagrius, I think the other thing that bothers me about the Two-Ps Tag Team’s approach is this: ISTM both Ps have constructed this ideological grid against which they evaluate all data. No amount of reality matters; no historical, Scriptural, or experiential evidence matters; all that matters is the Ideolgical Grid. Holy Tradition itself must be measured against (and yield before) the Ideological Grid–although the former spans 2,000 years while the latter is a construct manufactured by the Two Ps. (Private Judgment to the nth power.)

Not only does this approach remind me of that of some Calvinists I have known. Heck, it reminds me of the approach of some Trotskyists I have known. Fill in the “-ists” blank: This is ideology super omnia.

Evagrius I (think) your reply was addressed to me and I’m not sure if you both(or Diane specifically) feel that my prior reply about “philosophy” in the previous post is somehow utterly devoid of historical merit.

Again to Diane, bear in mind I was (in a very simple and greatly reduced manner, under constraint of time and willingness to produce specific quotes and such) attempting to be of aid to James G in his understanding of when he runs across the sentiment in regards to philosophy and simply offering him a perspective from the Orthodox Catholic side of what is meant when such statements are made.

So again I would ask what exactly in my previous statement did you find fault with?

Without getting too complex I would like to bring to your attention that history acquires an interpretation depending on who is telling it.

Now, simply assuming that I only picked up my history from “Orthodox polemics” I think is rather bold in a sense.

My aim in how I responded initially to James G was to give him insight into the statement that perplexed him about philosophy.

As well, as an Orthodox , I should feel it justified in trying to help the non- Orthodox understand the Faith in a manner consisitent and within an Orthodox “framework” and “grid”(I use those terms somewhat loosely).

And you as a Roman Catholic do the same thing. You are basing your answers and your hard held beliefs from “within” the worldview you have adopted via the Roman Catholic Church(on a scholarly and on a popular level) and if you are fair, you can only judge my statements and the statements of other Orthodox in relation and in contrast to what you understand to be accurate history, theology and the like.

What I think is operational in these conversations between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics is that it is not “history” that is necessarily in question but how does one interpret the history.

Orthodox like me who argue and form judgement from within an Orthodox “worldview” are not always doing it for “polemical” reasons but because our conclusions as to the nature and interpretation of history when rendered in conversations with those who do not hold to our interpretation the conclusion is reached(often but not always) that we are simply saying these things to be “polemical”.

I can say for myself that I am not trying to be polemical. That is not to say that I realize it is a daunting task to clearly explain to those “wtihout” the Orthodox Catholic Church Her Faith and ethos without giving offense. Along this vein of thought I think it beneficial to also make you(and others who take offense at what is perceived as Orthodox polemics) aware that in trying to explain Orthodoxy it can be frustrating and oftentimes because of frustration the natural resort is to short tempers and flare ups of anger.

My own writings and thoughts(as well as the other Orthodox here not “sold” on ecumenicism) are geared towards being of aid to those that are not Orthodox better understand Orthodoxy in however limited a fashion I am capable of doing so.

EE Editor- I apologize if what I wrote was airing “dirty laundry” .
I sometimes get a little too irritated at posters who seem to be quite sure of themselves and lacking a certain humility in regards to the subjects being discussed.
This blog, however, does not project this attitude which is why I enjoy it.
Thank you for indulging me.

In itself, philosophy is a rational discussion of various topics, from the nature of knowedge to ethics to the notion of Being and beings. There are questions in all these topics and various “solutions” ranging from crass materialism to ethereal idealism. All of them can be examined and decided upon as to whether they actually are in accordance to what is held to be true or truth.

Orthodoxy utilizes philosophy but only as a preliminary step to theology.

Richard Paul Vaggione’s book, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution, really shows this quite clearly. Eunomius’ mistake was to think that philosophy could replace theology, that clear philosophical definitions could replace what seemed to be fuzzy or unclear theological definitions.
He was wrong, of course.

In the West, there has always been the temptation to follow the Eunomian path and it often seems, at first glance, that this is what happens. But I think the great theologians of the West always knew the difference while their lesser followers often didn’t.

Orthodoxy utilizes philosophy but only as a preliminary step to theology.

correct,however, only if you do not consider theology in a strict sense to be merely a “category” by which interpretations are rendered as to the nature of ethics, Being and beings, the nature of knowledge, etc.

What Orthodoxy *understands* in her ethos but does not necessarily always explicitly explicate in Her dialogue with the West when speaking about the Faith is that “Person” transcends and supercedes “Category” and “Category” is very limited indeed when it makes attempts at delineating and defining “Person”.

When philosophy does do this, what I think should always be borne in mind is that whatever philosophy exists exudes from within the framework of the person or persons holding it and this framework is itself a “snapshot” of knowledge which the philosopher has had to place at a place of viewing(much as a portrait artist would need a subject before him to portray) whatever is the content of his “rational discussion”.

I believe that the Orthodox view, in its seeming ambiguity about various subjects *understands* this mystery and is therefore much more wont to pronounce as defined dogma subjects(such as the Immaculate Conception).

In this sense I would say that (perhaps) when these subjects are broached and given Orthodox credentials in the citing of Orthodox authors backing the broaching of the subject matter in the first place, this belies an a priori assumption that indeed the Orthodox formulate within this context of which you speak Evagrius, namely, the Eunomian Path.

The policy of this blog is to refer to the Catholic Church as such. “Roman Catholic Church” is a polemical term. It is also inappropriate for an Eastern blog as Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics. If when you refer to Roman Catholicism you mean the Western Church, you can call it Western Catholicism or Latin Catholicism. But, as you know, Eastern Catholics are very much a part of this conversation between East and West. The use of the term, RC exludes them. So, in order than we not fall into old style Orthodox polemicism, please refrain from the use of the term, RC.

First, I would like ask for your forgiveness if anyone finds offense with the use of the term “Roman Catholic”. I do not use it polemically and as I stated several days ago I am new to this blog and was unaware of the Church nomenclature in force for this blog.

Having said that, however, I would add that I find such a limitaion placed upon my use of words as crippling and hindering in my effort to convey my viewpoint and vantage point in these discussions.

If I may re-quote a substantial portion of my opening comment on this post to illustrate my point:

In other words, I believe that many things are assumed as being true for The Orthodox Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church without some very serious questions being addressed first, namely, what is the Christian Faith we are both(Orthodox Catholic and Roman Catholic) speaking about? Is it the same thing or are we wielding the same words and phrases with very different meaning poured into them?

These and other questions like them are paramount in my estimation of the starting point for ecumenical discussion.

One of the reasons I tend not to engage in forums such as this one is that many assumptions are incorporated into the groundwork necessitated by the overarching call of Ecumenism and that the prime questions of what we’re all supposed to be in agreement about are not asked or if asked, the one asking is misunderstood because he draws from a different soil(and therefore his roots draw forth different nutrients) in his answers and formulations.

I believe it to be wise to take into account the voice of those who dissent from “ecumenism” and to make the attempt at listening to why they offer dissent. Perhaps they may may be right.

My essay springs from a heartfelt desire to make known this other voice to those “outside” the Orthodox Catholic Church. Not in condemnation but with love stating that the differences are very real and have ramifications.

So now, how does one such as I, one who holds that the Orthodox Catholic Church is the Church(implying that the starting ground for Ecumenism itself is flawed because as per my opening comment very serious questions regarding the Faith we all say we hold in common have not been formulated or answered but we have all marched out under the banner of Ecumenism) converse in a forum such as this?

I ask this in sincere fashion and perhaps the answer is that I should not converse and attempt to show forth a viewpoint that differs from the majority viewpoint in regards to Ecumenism. If this be the case then I will comply with this blog’s operators and cease from comment.

But I would add that to still the voice of dissent, especially one offered in love , would not necessarily be wise.

So again, please know I do not mean to cause offense by my words but at the same time I can not violate my own conscience and march under the banner of Unquestioned Ecumenism either.

You are most welcome to post here and witness to the theology and life of the Orthodox Church.

No one is asking you to jettison your convictions about the claims of your own Church to be the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”; nor is anyone expecting you to jettison your convictions about what is amiss in the Catholic Church (that is, the communion of Churches recognizing the headship of the Bishop of Rome).

Nor is anyone asking the Catholics here to jettison their convictions about their own church as being fully “orthodox” and the Orthodox Church (that is, the communion of Chalcedonian Churches of Byzantine Rite, not accepting the headship of the Bishop of Rome) as lacking communion with the See of Rome which Catholics believe to be the true guardian of Christian orthodoxy.

I’m simply asking, for the sake of charity, that we show deference to our Christian brothers and sisters on the other side by referring to their Church by its current, preferred, recognized name in the English language.

If calling the Catholic Church by its own preferred name somehow violates your conscience, then I suppose it’s not possible for your to participate fruitfully here. No one wants you to violate your conscience.

Now, this is a combox attached to a post about belief in the Immaculate Conception in the history of the Orthodox Church. If you have questions about Church nomenclature, feel free to leave some comments in that combox.

The problem with the term Catholic Church is that both churches consider themselves that by the fact that we both say the Nicene Creed. I really don’t see what the problem with Roman Catholic is nor Eastern Orthodox in referring to each of our Churches. If want wants to speak to the Eastern Catholic Chuches then refer to them as such, since that is what they call themselves. In the Middle East the Orthodox are called Roman Orthodox while the Syriacs are called Syrian Orthodox. What we call the Roman Catholic church is called the Latin Church. The world knows a variety of names for our respective Church communities.

Prayers for Unity

O Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, thou didst promise to abide with us always. Thou dost call all Christians to draw near and partake of Thy Body and Blood. But our sin has divided us and we have no power to partake of Thy Holy Eucharist together. We confess this our sin and we pray Thee, forgive us and help us to serve the ways of reconciliation, according to Thy Will. Kindle our hearts with the fire of the Holy Spirit. Give us the spirit of Wisdom and faith, of daring and of patience, of humility and firmness, of love and of repentance, through the prayers of the most blessed Mother of God and of all the saints. Amen. – Fr Sergius Bulgakov

O Merciful Lord Jesus, Our Savior, hear the prayers and petitions of Your unworthy sinful servants who humbly call upon You and make us all to be one in Your one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Flood our souls with Your unquenchable light. Put an end to religious disagreements, and grant that we Your disciples and Your beloved children may all worship You with a single heart and voice. Fulfill quickly, O grace-giving Lord, your promise that there shall be one flock and one Divine Shepherd of Your Church; and may we be made worthy to glorify Your Holy Name now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen. – Bl. Leonid Fedorov